Citation NR: 9612690
Decision Date: 05/08/96 Archive Date: 05/21/96
DOCKET NO. 94-09 139 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little
Rock, Arkansas
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to waiver of recovery of an overpayment of
improved pension benefits in the amount of $4,793.03.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant, his spouse, Ron Lee and Anna Lee
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
James R. Siegel, Counsel
REMAND
The veteran served on active duty from October 1942 to
November 1945.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a March 1993 decision of the Committee
on Waivers and Compromises which denied the veteran's claim
of entitlement to waiver of recovery of the overpayment of
improved pension benefits in the amount of $4,793.03 on the
basis that his actions constituted bad faith. Subsequently,
the Regional Office (RO), in the statement of the case dated
in May 1993, concluded that the overpayment was not due to
fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of the
veteran. Nevertheless, waiver of recovery of the overpayment
remained denied on the basis that recovery thereof would not
be against equity and good conscience. The Board concurs
with the determination that the overpayment was not due to
fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith.
Thus, the question before the Board is whether recovery of
the overpayment would be against equity and good conscience.
One of the most important factors in making this
determination is whether recovery of the debt would result in
financial hardship. The veteran has submitted several
financial status reports, but the most recent one was
received in February 1993. When he testified at a hearing in
March 1994, the veteran claimed that severe hardship would
result if he had to repay the debt. The veteran’s
representative has reported, essentially, that the veteran’s
financial status has declined and has requested that he be
given an opportunity to submit a more current financial
status report.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that
additional development of the record is warranted.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for action as
follows:
The RO should request that the veteran
submit another financial status report
which details all his monthly income and
expenses.
Following completion of the above, the RO should review the
evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may be
granted. If not, he and his representative should be
furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case,
and the case should then be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration.
WILLIAM J. REDDY
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -